raw_timer_record

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It honestly warns that the action 'may open a dialog or change project state,' which is valuable context. However, it does not specify what state changes could occur, whether the dialog is modal, or what the observable outcome will be, so transparency is only partial.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is short and mostly front-loaded with the primary purpose. The 'TimerRecord:' prefix is somewhat redundant with the tool name, and the final instruction is vague, but the overall length is appropriate and no major filler is present.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description covers the no-argument nature and hints at possible side effects, which is useful for a low-complexity tool. However, the ambiguity between opening a dialog and changing project state leaves the agent uncertain about the actual effect. Without annotations or an output schema, this uncertainty is a meaningful gap.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has zero parameters, so there is little to document. The description reinforces this by calling the action 'no-argument,' which matches the schema. No additional parameter meaning is needed, and the baseline for a zero-parameter tool applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific verb and resource: 'Open Timer Record dialog.' This distinguishes the tool from the many sibling raw_* commands, which have different targets. However, it undercuts itself by adding 'May open a dialog or change project state,' introducing uncertainty about the core action.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No explicit guidance explains when to choose this tool over alternatives. The instruction to 'inspect the command name first' is vague and does not clarify selection criteria. Sibling tools like raw_record2nd_choice or raw_toggle are not mentioned, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.